This is misleading. Very short swords are in regular use at least since the late archaic times. Many examples survive from the late 6th century in Macedonia, and even in the BM there is one supposedly coming from Marathon. Of course this doesn't mean that it dated from the battle of Marathon, but it's scabbard typology at least point to a middle classical time.

Quote:Thracian cavalry corselet is a Tube-and-Yoke one made from 3 mm thick leather, re-inforced with scales ( in this case all over, making it the most expensive kind). This is a well known armour principle c.f. ‘face hardened steel’ used on armoured vehicles. The ‘hardened’ material provides the initial resistance, backed up by the bulk of the defence, here the leather, just like on armoured vehicles with ‘face hardened’ steel armour.

This is metal armour. The leather simply provides a substrate to hold the plates together. This leather is so thin that you can stick a pencil through it with little effort. If you want to twist definitions this wildly then we may as well claim that the Roman segmentata is made of leather because of the strapping holding the plates together.

Quote:Thracian cavalry corselet is a Tube-and-Yoke one made from 3 mm thick leather, re-inforced with scales ( in this case all over, making it the most expensive kind). This is a well known armour principle c.f. ‘face hardened steel’ used on armoured vehicles. The ‘hardened’ material provides the initial resistance, backed up by the bulk of the defence, here the leather, just like on armoured vehicles with ‘face hardened’ steel armour.

This is metal armour. The leather simply provides a substrate to hold the plates together. This leather is so thin that you can stick a pencil through it with little effort. If you want to twist definitions this wildly then we may as well claim that the Roman segmentata is made of leather because of the strapping holding the plates together.

You may choose to call it 'metal' if you wish ( a 'twisted definition' if ever there was one), but the rest of the world calls it 'composite' in recognition of the fact that - just as I explained - it is a combination of the materials which make up the overall protective effect. It grieves me to have to say that the rest of your post is totally incorrect. Not only can you not stick a pencil through 3mm of leather, one cannot stick a pencil, nor stab a pencil dagger-like, through even 1 mm of leather, as I have just tested on an impromptu basis. ( Yes, I was foolish enough to allow the possibility of your assertion being correct ) All that happens is that the lead breaks. Your comment about 'segmentata' is simply an example of two illogical fallacies, to whit, 'reductio ad absurdum' ( pushing an argument to an absurd conclusion)
AND at the same time a 'false analogy'.

As to the effectiveness of 'thin' leather, 17C European cavalry generally wore 'buff' coats whose thickness varied from 1mm to a maximum of 5mm which was considered a perfectly adequate defence against swords, and no doubt 'spent' pistol bullets too - as I know you are well aware of from postings elsewhere. [It is possible, and even probable that Tube-and-Yoke corselets varied in thickness also. Certainly a 'double breasted' one did]

A 5 mm thick Tube-and-Yoke would therefore also be adequate, especially considering it was combined with a shield, giving what was effectively 'spaced armour' protection. Penetration of both was a rarity, but could happen, as the unfortunate Spartan Leonymus of the 'Ten Thousand' discovered when a large 3 ft arrow from a Carduchi longbow killed him after penetrating both. (Xen Anabasis IV.1.18 and IV.2 )
[Digression: Metal armour offered no better protection, the Arcadian Basias being killed after having been shot clean through the head, so one of these arrows penetrated both sides of his helmet ( the anecdote would be somewhat pointless if he was not wearing one), as well as both sides of the skull. Xenophon recounts these two anecdotes to emphasise the astonishing power, for the time, of Carduchi longbows]

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -GeorgeC Scott as General George S. Patton
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff

JaM wrote:"sorry if oftopic, but how accurate would be this? book claims its based on sculpture from Volterra:"

This is hardly the place for this sort of query.....
The illustration is from AW magazine, Vol 1.4 Dec/Jan 2008 and purports to show a Roman 'Hastati' or 'Principe' from Cato's army in Spain, 195 BC. Even though there are no iconographical representations of Roman legionaries of this time ( the nearest being the Aemilius Paullus frieze of 167 BC aprox, or the late 1 C BC frieze which may be from the altar of 'Domitius') this imaginative depiction of D'Amato can be seen to be inaccurate. I have been to the Voltera museum a.k.a Guarnacci Etruscan musem, and it has a number of friezes from Etruscan sarcophagi, and the description is too vague to pinpoint which one is being referred to here. As far as is known, Romans ( nor Etruscans) did not wear a sub-armalis of any kind at this time or later in the Republican era. The 'sub-armalis' is most likely a mis-interpretation of creases in a tunic. The anatomical cuirass is typical of the second half of the fourth century, and as it says, comes from South Italy and there is no evidence that it was in use in the Roman army so far as I am aware. There is no evidence for this type of triple feather crest ( described by Polybius), and the evidence we have shows one central feather or horsecrest holder, and two side ones (See attached - definitely Roman! ) The Montefortino helmet was adapted from the Celts and widely worn in Etruscan north and Roman central Italy.

The whole 'reconstruction' is just a mish-mash of Etruscan and South Italian gear, with some fictional touches such as the crest, the product of D'Amato's imaginative interpretations ( for which he is notorious) and most likely inaccurate.......

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -GeorgeC Scott as General George S. Patton
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff

I was mostly interested in the padding under the pectorales, which seems kinda a good idea to have, when strapping a metal square to the chest.. seems to me it would be quite unpleasant to wear (and run with it, throw javelins etc..) if it was just worn over a tunic.

I know typically Etruscan or South Italian frescoes show men mostly with tunics, but similarly to Greeks, they could be just portraying "idealized" picture, in a best possible way, while actual battle use might have been less colorful, similarly to Greeks notion to portray men naked.
Btw, is there any info available about typical march speed of Hoplites/Phalangites? Read somewhere Romans used standard march of 100 paces/min and quick march of 120 paces/minute, but i guess Romans would be a bit faster due to more open formation than what Greeks used?

Speeds for Roman marches are often based on Vegetius' description of conditioning marches:

"Recruits were to be hardened so as to be able to march twenty miles in half a summer's day at ordinary step and twenty-four miles at quick step. It was the ancient regulation that practice marches of this distance must be made three times a month."(DRM, Book 1)

It sounds fast but its not. I'll do the conversions for the faster of the marches to put it in perspective.

The 24 Roman miles converts into 22 modern statute mile. Since the summer days are longer than any other and that in ancient Rome daylight hours were divided equally into twelve hours, it means that it wasn't six hours as many would assume. Based on the latitude of the northern Mediterranean half a summer's day means eight hours (sixteen hours of total sunlight). 22 miles divided by eight hours equals 2.75 miles per hour. Which isn't very fast.

The slower of the two march speeds described by Vegetius, 20 Roman miles in eight hours, that converts into 18.5 statute miles in eight hours, which equals 2.3 mph. Even slower.

Of course the time limits were the slowest they were allowed to complete the marches, so they likely finished under the time limit. Take into account unlevel ground. Additionally, since nobody actually marches eight hours without a break they'd probably have marched a bit faster in order to make up the time for rest stops.

Good informative post , Bryan . Many people working out "average" march speeds neglect to allow for 'rest' stops, meal stops, time taken to move a large army out of campetc, or the inevitable delays to a large body of men, such as passing a defile, or crossing a stream and so on, which generally mean the actual pace is more like 4 mph, in order to obtain those 'average' speeds. Greeks and Romans both used similar 'open' formations on the march. Hoplites often had a 'batman' to carry heavy gear such as their shields, and they could keep up a pretty hot pace by a 'forced march' when needed. The Spartans covered the 240 km/150 mile distance to Athens in just 3 days, but even so were too late for the battle of Marathon for example.[Herodotus] For phalangites we have a number of examples, such as the march prior to the battle of Pisidia 320 BC. Antigonos Monophthalmos marched to this battle against Alketas with an army of about 47,000 for seven consecutive days, at around 40 miles a day.Diodorus [XVIII.44-46]says ;"Making a forced march that strained the endurance of his men to the utmost, he traversed 2,500 stades(285 miles, 457 km ) in seven days and the same number of nights, reaching Cretopolis as it is called."

For Romans there are also plenty of examples, such as Nero's forced march to the Metaurus to help defeat Hasdrubal in the second Punic War.Livy, 27.43-49: C. Claudius Nero marches some 250 miles in seven days to reinforce M. Livius Salinator at Metaurus. This averages at 35,7 miles a day. Livy mentions that "there was no loitering, no straggling, no halt except while taking food; they marched day and night; they gave to rest hardly enough time for the needs of their bodies."

Depending on the size of the army, the terrain, weather, whether a baggage train was present etc, a rough guide to a 'normal' marching rate would be 12-24 miles per day.

There are a number of threads on this subject here on RAT if you search......

@JaM
Whether something is "a good idea" or not is often the basis for speculation about aspects of ancient warfare, but this is just bad methodology, without evidence ( and AFIK there is none for a 'sub-armalis' at this time). Have you considered that since a Greek or Roman soldier spent most of his time doing laborious work such as marching or digging, and that he might be in battle maybe once in a campaign, that wearing a thick, heavy jerkin in the heat of a Mediterranean summer campaigning season might be a very bad idea?

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -GeorgeC Scott as General George S. Patton
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff

(09-22-2016, 02:41 PM)Bryan Wrote: Speeds for Roman marches are often based on Vegetius' description of conditioning marches:

"Recruits were to be hardened so as to be able to march twenty miles in half a summer's day at ordinary step and twenty-four miles at quick step. It was the ancient regulation that practice marches of this distance must be made three times a month."(DRM, Book 1)

This is not correct. Vegetius specifically states that recruits should be trained to march these distances in five hours in the summer. Taking there to be 16 hours of daylight by modern reckoning, this means that a Roman summer hour amounted to 80 minutes and that the recruits covered the distances in 400 minutes or 6 hours 40 minutes. This works out at 2.8 statute miles per hour at the military pace and 3.3 at the full pace. However, the Romans over-trained, so that campaigning conditions would appear easy by comparison. Accordingly, these distances should be seen as maxima and not necessarily those that would normally be expected to be covered on campaign.

Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)

Renatus wrote:
"This works out at 2.8 statute miles per hour at the military pace and 3.3 at the full pace. However, the Romans over-trained, so that campaigning conditions would appear easy by comparison. Accordingly, these distances should be seen as maxima and not necessarily those that would normally be expected to be covered on campaign."

Again, this average does not take into account rest stops, probably taken hourly, so that the actual pace would be rather higher. That these speeds are 'maxima' is indicated by Vegetius' next words:
"If they exceed this pace, they no longer march, but run, and no certain rate can be assigned."
i.e. the quick 'full step' is maximum walking speed. The average human walking speed is about 3.1 mph. Some people are capable of exceeding 5 mph while still maintaining a walking gait, but the natural tendency is to begin running at much beyond 4 mph.

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -GeorgeC Scott as General George S. Patton
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff

(09-22-2016, 10:35 PM)Paullus Scipio Wrote: Again, this average does not take into account rest stops, probably taken hourly, so that the actual pace would be rather higher.

I don't dissent from that. Taking the actual marching speed at the military pace to be 3 mph, 18.5 miles could be covered in 6 hours 10 minutes, allowing a total rest period of 30 mins. over the period of the march - not too bad for training purposes. Allowing the same rest period for a march at the full pace gives a marching speed of 3.6 mph. Alternatively, the training marches could have been undertaken without breaks or with very short ones, making campaigning with more generous breaks seem easier by comparison.

I wish that my father were still alive, so that I could ask him about the route march he undertook during the War, carrying a Bren gun all the way, after which he consumed 24 cups of tea without a break in between. This perhaps indicates that there were no refreshment stops during march.

Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)

Quote:Whether something is "a good idea" or not is often the basis for speculation about aspects of ancient warfare, but this is just bad methodology, without evidence ( and AFIK there is none for a 'sub-armalis' at this time). Have you considered that since a Greek or Roman soldier spent most of his time doing laborious work such as marching or digging, and that he might be in battle maybe once in a campaign, that wearing a thick, heavy jerkin in the heat of a Mediterranean summer campaigning season might be a very bad idea?

there are mentions of Felt treated with winegar being used as body protection, so its hardly something impossible for Romans or Greeks to use.. plus, it didnt had to be in a shape of a complete tunic, just simple sleeveless "shirt" would most likely suffice. And then needs to be said that no matter the weather body protection was been used anyway, medieval infantry wore a lot more than Ancient one under same or even worse (Holy Land) conditions...

but back to the topic, originally i was more interested in actual battle speeds, at which Greeks would adopt their formation, move towards enemy and charge. Would be interesting to know if Macedonic Phalanx was faster or slower in actual battles (i would assume faster), and how it would compare to Roman Maniples in much looser formation.